A reader recently sent me an e-mail about a woman he had met and fallen for. Apparently the attraction was mutual -- until one fateful day the subject of the environment came up.

She was absolutely opposed to any drilling for oil in Alaska, on grounds of what harm she said it would do to the environment.

He argued that, since oil was going to be drilled for somewhere in the world anyway, was it not better to drill where there were environmental laws to provide at least some kinds of safeguards, rather than in countries where there were none?

That was the end of a beautiful relationship.

Environmentalist true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. There are things that are sacred to them. Trying to get them to compromise on those things would be like trying to convince a Moslem to eat pork, if it was only twice a week.

Compromise and tolerance are not the hallmarks of true believers. What they believe in goes to the heart of what they are. As far as true believers are concerned, you are either one of Us or one of Them.

The man apparently thought that it was just a question of which policy would produce which results. But many issues that look on the surface like they are just about which alternative would best serve the general public are really about being one of Us or one of Them -- and this woman was not about to become one of Them.

Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.

T.S. Eliot understood this more than half a century ago when he wrote: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

In this case, the man thought he was asking the woman to accept a certain policy as the lesser of two evils, when in fact he was asking her to give up her sense of being one of the morally anointed.

This is not unique to our times or to environmentalists. Back during the 1930s, in the years leading up to World War II, one of the fashionable self-indulgences of the left in Britain was to argue that the British should disarm "as an example to others" in order to serve the interests of peace.

When economist Roy Harrod asked one of his friends whether she thought that disarming Britain would cause Hitler to disarm, her reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?"

In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.

The ostensible goal of peace was window-dressing. Ultimately it was not a question whether arming or disarming Britain was more likely to deter Hitler. It was a question of which policy would best establish the moral superiority of the anointed and solidify their identification with one another.

"Peace" movements are not judged by the empirical test of how often they actually produce peace or how often their disarmament tempts an aggressor into war. It is not an empirical question. It is an article of faith and a badge of identity.

Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace -- not for actually producing peace but for being part of what was called "the peace process," based on fashionable notions that were common bonds among members of what are called "peace movements."

Meanwhile, nobody suggested awarding a Nobel Prize for peace to Ronald Reagan, just because he brought the nuclear dangers of a decades-long cold war to an end. He did it the opposite way from how members of "peace movements" thought it should be done.

Reagan beefed up the military and entered into an "arms race" that he knew would bankrupt the Soviet Union if they didn't back off, even though arms races are anathema to members of "peace movements." The fact that events proved him right was no excuse as far as members of "peace movements" were concerned. As far as they were concerned, he was not one of Us. He was one of Them.

Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Back during the 1930s, in the years leading up to World War II, one of the fashionable self-indulgences of the left in Britain was to argue that the British should disarm "as an example to others" in order to serve the interests of peace.

One needn't go back to the 1930s to find this. One can look to the "nuclear freeze" movement of the 1980s. Or the violent pacifists of today.

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

Sowell even quotes people better than anyone else.

10
posted on 10/25/2005 3:01:10 AM PDT
by Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)

He's one of the clearest thinkers ( and writers ) I've every run across- I just wish the larger public were more exposed to his work. He has a way of clearing the decks and framing whatever issue he's discussing in simple, stark terms.

16
posted on 10/25/2005 3:17:04 AM PDT
by backhoe
(The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)...)

___ [insert favored crusade] ___ true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. There are things that are sacred to them. Trying to get them to compromise on those things would be like trying to convince a Moslem to eat pork, if it was only twice a week.

Compromise and tolerance are not the hallmarks of true believers. What they believe in goes to the heart of what they are. As far as true believers are concerned, you are either one of Us or one of Them.

Many crusades of the political fringes have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.

They do not want to hear that our Constitution has set limits for political change. IE -- Our rights to life, liberty, or property shall not be infringed upon by true believers on 'crusades'..

Funny. For years, I was somewhat mystified over the actions and behavior of the left. I thought to myself, even a child can see this specific course of action is wrong. I came to realize they care nothing for the country - past, present, or future. It is just about them!

I became acquainted with Steyn way back when he was the movie reviewer and media critic for the old American Spectator, but he really shot up in my esteem around 1997 or '98, with an article in the WSJ titled "In defense of Tabloid Sleaze."

Naturally, it was about Little Big Fraud and his "can't keep it in his pants" scandals of the time.

22
posted on 10/25/2005 3:33:53 AM PDT
by backhoe
(The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)...)

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

Sowell even quotes people better than anyone else.

" -- The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression. -- "

You might have something there. Maybe that's why today's pacifists are so violent -- verbally, physically, and in attitude.

They don't go bonkers b/c we are for (fill in the blank), but b/c they perceive our opposition to (fill in the blank) as an attack, first and foremost, against them. And that, in turn, spurs a kind of aristrocrtatic/"the anointed" outrage calvery-to-infantry sort of thing. And also, maybe, just maybe, in their heart of hearts, opposition may stir the fitfully slumbering genie of doubt.

26
posted on 10/25/2005 3:38:32 AM PDT
by yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")

He's one of the clearest thinkers ( and writers ) I've every run across- I just wish the larger public were more exposed to his work. He has a way of clearing the decks and framing whatever issue he's discussing in simple, stark terms.

I agree. "Why didn't I think of that?" is a common reaction to his writings.

Dr. Sowell is one of the best thinkers/writers in America and it's a shame, a tragedy and extraordinarily dangerous that liberals don't recognize his basic common sense. They will never realize that it's better to have Ronald Regan's peace through strength and be accused of having "lost all your idealism" than to be 6' under with one's "personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls" intact. As a political philosophy, liberalism wins the Darwin award.

Funny. For years, I was somewhat mystified over the actions and behavior of the left. I thought to myself, even a child can see this specific course of action is wrong. I came to realize they care nothing for the country - past, present, or future. It is just about them!

It is almost a form of religious fanaticism with the left. (Some fanatics blow themselves up on buses others martyr themselves by voting for Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy.)

I had never thought of the aspect of self elevation, however. It makes sense, though, if you think about it.

In their view: If the government represents the people and you are the people and the government becomes more powerful, then you have become more powerful even though you have relinquished your individuality to the government.

Sort of off topic, but I saw Andrea Mitchell yesterday, and then later saw Greenspan when the Bernanke appointment was announced and I realized the truth again of how some couples come to resemble each other. I wonder how Andrea feels about that?

Do you remember the fit that Mrs. Greenspan had when she was given a hard time in the Middle East (following Condi Rice)? But instead of giving the new Secretary of State her due for standing up for Mrs. Greenspan, we heard editorial commentary in news that it wasn't enough.

So the Greenspans are well suited, as both do not work well with others.

40
posted on 10/25/2005 5:13:50 AM PDT
by saveliberty
(I did not break the feed. I may have lost it, but I did not break the feed.)

Both of you touch on a quote that Thomas Sowell has cited not too long ago

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

-- T. S. Eliot3

43
posted on 10/25/2005 5:20:30 AM PDT
by saveliberty
(I did not break the feed. I may have lost it, but I did not break the feed.)

The causes of the Left are their religion. That's why they display the same fanaticism as the Islamists in defending their goal of ruling the earth and having everyone else do what they say. That's why both these fanatic religions attack Christianity.

>In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.

The ostensible goal of peace was window-dressing. Ultimately it was not a question whether arming or disarming Britain was more likely to deter Hitler. It was a question of which policy would best establish the moral superiority of the anointed and solidify their identification with one another.<

Dr Sowell is one of the great conservative minds of our time.

49
posted on 10/25/2005 7:13:24 AM PDT
by Darnright
(Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.